What if all of mankind had only one religion?

[DetlefK]

I have read an interesting theory here on DU that religion would actually collapse if the existence of God were somehow proven. From that point on, believing in him would no longer be a mission, a statement, a sacrifice, a noble deed, a glorious struggle against doubts, a meaning for your horrible hopeless life. From that point on, you and everybody else would know that God exists.

What would be the difference? If the existence of God were proven, believing in him would be no different from believing other things:
You believe that walls are hard. You believe that you shouldn't eat yellow snow... Believing in God would no longer be something special.



That brings me to the topic of my post.

Imagine, all of mankind were united in one religion.
No schisms, no denominations, no heretics, no atheists.
Nobody to indoctrinate except the children and they will get it anyway from a million sources.
Nobody to struggle against.
Nobody who challenges your faith.
Nothing but affirmation and unity all around.

Believing in God would no longer be something special, it would just be something everybody does.



Will this religion cease to be a religion and get absorbed by the culture?
Can a religion even exist if there is nobody to be excluded, to be fought/debated against?

[cantbeserious]

1. What If All Mankind Had No Religion

eom

[Major Nikon]

14. What if we found out god was really the devil

[AtheistCrusader]

64. it would explain a great many things.

[safeinOhio]

2. They'd break up over

the details. They always do. How many sects would they end up?

[DetlefK]

4. Which brings us back to the point: Can religion exist without outsiders?

How do you define yourself if you cannot tell "This is me and this is not me?"

[cbayer]

18. Perhaps it would just lead to a larger and more cohesive earthly community?

Perhaps if the differences disappeared, there would be less we/them and that would be a very positive thing.

[DetlefK]

19. But would it still be as important? Would it still be religion?

Would it still hold a special place in society?

[cbayer]

20. If, as some have imagined, god is an all-powerful being,

I think there would most certainly still be religion and s/he/it would hold a very special place in society.

Things might become somewhat more pragmatic, but I suspect there would still be issues of faith and fate.

[okasha]

39. Of course.

For centuries, all of Europe was Catholic.

The people found plenty of other ways to differentiate themselves, and plenty to fight over.

[Ford_Prefect]

3. I don't think there could ever be only one.

If we perceive god in our own image as an ideal at the very least I think we would have 2.

[SharonAnn]

36. If there were only one, then the "priests" would rule everything according to their interpretation

If there were only one, then the "priests" would have all power and rule everything according to their interpretation of the religion.

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
― Denis Diderot

[jtuck004]

5. Why would we need a religion so badly? Still need a scapegoat for fears and shortcomings? Dispense

with it, have a better day.

[BlueJazz]

6. The way we're living and acting now sure ain't working right.

This hairless ape, grab your club and attack the other apes is really getting old...

"And you want to join the Federation??...I think not"

[RKP5637]

12. We're confined to this spinning ball of dirt for a purpose, they threw us back to

get our sh** together, and that sure ain't working. Really, who wants much to do with the human species than as an oddity, a curiosity. Federation?? Yep, no way!

[Android3.14]

7. This is a question that has motivated countless atrocities

The history of religion should replace any fuzzy-wuzzy sense you may have for the idea.

[Orrex]

8. Proving the existence of the Christian god, for instance, would accomplish little

It certainly wouldn't guarantee sincere worship. I find the god of the Christian bible to be a monstrous and vile entity more rightly deserving of scorn than worship.

At best, proof of a god's existence would give certain well-placed individuals the perceived leverage to force obedience from the flock, using whatever mechanisms the anointed ones can imagine.

More or less exactly like the real world, in which no god has been demonstrated to exist.

[noamnety]

9. and what if that one religion was homophobic, sexist and racist?

We would have a whole lot of people living in slavery without rising up against it, or committing suicide. And those in power wouldn't have anyone challenging them on it.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. but you know "god".

[okasha]

40. What makes you think

people wouldn't rise up? It happens all the time in theocratic states. Atheist ones, too, for that matter.

[noamnety]

61. I was running with the OP's presumptions

that everyone would universally believe it was the word of god. So a gay teen would just grow up with the belief that they were going to hell, a slave would believe that was their lot in life. Rising up against a discriminatory religion is part of the real world, but in this imaginary one people relegated to a lower status by the religion would believe they were supposed to be second class citizens.

[okasha]

67. Why would a particular class of people

submit meekly to being "less than?" You'd have a schism sooner or later, probably an outright rebellion.

My people have a story. Long ago, a group of strange men came to the Cherokee people. They were called the Ani Kutani, and they convinced everyone that only they could make the sun come up in the morning. They took increasing advantage of their position, demanding the best food, the most beautiful clothing, the most comforable houses. Finally they made sexual demands of the women, who promptly killed them all.

[skepticscott]

69. For the same reason that

women and lesbians submit meekly to being "less than" in the Catholic Church. For the same reason that some women and lesbians praise and defend the pope against all accusations of homophobia and misogyny.

Now do you understand, okasha?

[Warren Stupidity]

82. The hypothesis includes a "proven" god.

So presumably resistance is futile. If the god is an horrendous tyrant, so be it. You might as well wonder why livestock don't rise up and resist their overlords.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Believing in god isn't something special. It is the norm in this society.

That plus "all of mankind were united in one religion" is a fucking nightmare.

Europe for the 500 years prior to the renaissance and reformation was united under one religion and religion most certainly did not "cease to be a religion" or get "absorbed by the culture".

[Silent3]

11. One religion wouldn't be a religion at all. n/t

[RKP5637]

13. Given mankind's love for discord, the SOS would continue, it would just

morph into new dimensions of discord.

[pokerfan]

45. Reminds me of the Man on a Bridge joke...

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
"Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

[RKP5637]

47. ...

[cbayer]

50. I've heard the exact same joke but it has to do with Scots

and their connections.

[cbayer]

15. Er, I'm pretty sure that it would be atheism that would collapse if the existence of

a god was proven. But that's pretty much besides the point.

For me, nothing would change. For others, it might. But it would change most significantly for those that believed strongly that god did not exist.

[trotsky]

16. "For me, nothing would change."

Say whaaaaa?

You have admitted in the past you don't believe in gods. If a god were proven, you would. I know I would. Sounds like something would change. But then again, perhaps you're perfect just the way you are and no new information could ever matter.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. I have a slightly different interpretation.

Only for somebody who already believes in "god" nothing would change. That would put the poster into the category of "believer" despite whatever claims have been made to the contrary here.

[trotsky]

24. That would definitely make the statement logical and consistent. n/t

[Major Nikon]

25. Which is kinda what separates atheists from believers

Unlike religionists, atheists are capable of changing their beliefs based on new information.

[cbayer]

33. Oh, bull. There are those in both areas that are capable of change

and there are those who are rigid and dogmatic.

There is only one single thing that separates atheists from believers and that is the belief in a god or gods.

Anything else you attribute as differences is only a reflection of your own wishes, but not on fact or evidence.

[Major Nikon]

34. I don't think you understand

The reason atheists are atheists is because they have rejected something for which there is no proof. Given proof they are capable of changing their belief. There is no proof you can give to a religionist to cause them to change their belief.

[cbayer]

37. I understand perfectly well.

Theists believe in god. Atheists do not believe in god. That is it.

Whether there is proof or not is irrelevant. Being a believer is not superior to being a non-believer or vice versa.

Given proof of existence or non-existence is likely to change the beliefs of many people, though there are both believers and no-believers who would hold on despite evidence.

Your assumption that a religious person would not accept any proof of non-existence of a deity is a flawed premise and leads to a wholly false conclusion.

[Major Nikon]

42. I don't understand you at all

I have no idea what proof of non-existence would even look like.

[cbayer]

44. I don't either. I also don't know what the proof of existence would

look like.


Since I can't imagine either one, it's easy to leave the door open to things that I can't imagine.

I suggest you don't understand me because you have already defined what a nonbeliever is, and I don't fit the definition.

[Major Nikon]

48. Even nomadic sheep herders could imagine what proof of god looks like

It's just not that difficult.

[cbayer]

49. What does proof of god look like?

While people before nomadic sheep herder and after them have reported what they felt was evidence of their gods, no one has produced proof. Imaging it means pretty much nothing.

What do you imagine proof of god would look like? It's not that difficult, right?

[Major Nikon]

51. Do I really need to quote religious verses for you?

Walking on water, healing the sick, turning water into wine, exorcisms, resurrecting dead people, making donkeys talk, raining frogs, cursing fig trees, controlling the weather, parting the Red Sea, making food pop out of nowhere.

Any of those ring a bell?

[cbayer]

52. Do you believe those verses? Do you accept them as proof?

Are they proof?

Of course they are not.

Proof has a very specific definition:

Making this personal is a big white flag.

[Major Nikon]

60. You asked what such proof would look like, not what it is

It was a silly enough question to begin with and you just took it to an order of magnitude sillier which I am no longer interested in entertaining further.

Cheers!

[cbayer]

62. But proof doesn't look like that at all. Religious people rely on faith.

They know what that means. It means that they believe despite the lack of evidence. They don't think these things are proof. They might think that there are signs and miracles, but generally don't call that proof.

You started this subthread with a statement that has no basis in fact. You have not been able to defend it.

I will accept your withdrawal.

See you around the campfire!

[okasha]

72. That's not proof of God.

If verified, they're proof that a prophet/priest/shaman has extraordinary powers. That's all.

[trotsky]

38. She understands within the narrative she has constructed.

The narrative in which horrible rigid atheist fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins (who writes books and admits he isn't absolutely sure gods don't exist) are EXACTLY THE SAME as militant fundamentalist religionists (who murder people with bombs, planes, and blades).

EXACTLY THE SAME. Now stop questioning that and just accept it, or you'll be placed on ignore.

[Major Nikon]

43. Well, even Richard Dawkins has said he is willing to change his ideas based on new information

One has to wonder what contradictory new information would look like to a believer, and apparently that would take the form of proof of non-existence, whatever that could possibly be.

[stone space]

85. I don't think it would, actually.

I'm pretty sure that it would be atheism that would collapse if the existence of a god was proven.

I don't think that any even minimally serious atheism would collapse.

Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the “new atheism” should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim — arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the “new atheism” should begin by looking in the mirror.

--Noam Chomsky--

http://attackthesystem.com/2012/03/11/noam-chomsky-on-the-new-atheism/

Let’s take another step back. I would argue further that these non-religious ideologies are themselves a form of religion. Is there any more reality to the mythical Fatherland or the invisible hand of the market then there is to Allah, Jehovah, or Thor? These ideologies we profess are our new gods. And they serve a very similar function.

Much of our attraction to religion, and to the idea of a deity, stems from a very human need to believe that life is, in some sense, under control. In a universe that is random and chaotic, the notion that some exterior force, whether a deity or a nation or an economic system, has things under control is a very comforting thing indeed. The problem, of course, is that in our yearning for the illusion of control, we voluntarily subject ourselves to a very real control of our own creation. Whether God, nation, or capitalism, we line up to submit. That is a dangerous thing indeed.

And this is where atheism is, if not failing, missing a real and vital opportunity. So much time is spent battling with old gods that we’ve missed the new ones that society has built up about us. The worship of state and capital are worthy targets. It is time to broaden our horizons.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/new-atheism-should-expand-its-horizons/18933-new-atheism-should-expand-its-horizons

[cbayer]

89. One has to assume from the OP that there is actually "proof"

Many atheists have said that were they offered actual proof, they would become believers.

I don't believe that whatever proof might be offered would likely be sufficient for those that have a firm disbelief, but, theoretically, if it were, then those that held on to atheism would be like flat-earthers.

[stone space]

90. I'm assuming that.

But that in itself doesn't lead to a collapse of an atheism of any seriousness, and an atheism that takes into account the rise of technology over the last few centuries.

Humans have become very adept at creating Gods with vast powers over us.

This is a fact that has to have a very serious impact on what it means to be an atheist in out modern technological world.

What Chomsky called the "virulent religion of state worship" would still be with us, and still a huge issue for serious atheism.

A proof of the existence of a single God not made by humans would do little to counter the fundamental atheist insight regarding the man made nature of Gods in general, which would still be true for the vast majority of Gods.

[cbayer]

91. Ah, it is our continuing disagreement about the definition of atheism.

As I define atheism very, very narrowly, it would, by definition if a god were proven to exist. Not believing in that god would become a pathology.

One might still be anti-religion, but could not logically be atheist.

[stone space]

92. Wow.

Not believing in that god would become a pathology.

[cbayer]

93. Why do you say wow?

If I said that elephants existed and had proof of such a thing and you denied that elephants existed, there would be something wrong with your perception of reality.

What would you call it?

[stone space]

94. Because it seemed uncharacteristic.

Why do you say wow?

[cbayer]

95. Your responses are too vague to infer what it is you are saying.

If you wish to add more substance so that I know what you are talking about, I think we can proceed. Otherwise, this just seems to be some kind of judgmental response.

[trotsky]

17. The people who would have the hardest time adjusting...

would be the fundamentalists who were so certain about the god they believed in, yet turned out wrong.

I suspect many of them would find a way to continue believing in the god they prefer.

[notadmblnd]

53. They wouldn't have a hard time adjusting

Because if there really was a God, they'd be the first he'd strike dead.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Using history as an example, it seems likely we would turn against each other anyway.

And fight over minor differences instead of major differences.

If you look at Christianity as a representative example, that is essentially what happened. Once the religion became du jure in Europe, without considerable competition, Christdendom turned against itself and battled it out over orthodoxy, dogma, and other theological quibbles.

[ladjf]

26. It all boils down to whether you prefer depending on mythological magic rather

than observable actual events. nt

[okasha]

27. What you describe

was pretty much the case across North America before the coming of the whites. Native Americans fought each other for many reasons, but religion wasn't one of them. Today, it still is religion and so "absorbed into the culture" that many NA llanguages have only one word for religion, culture, history.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

28. Let us remember the story of the blind men and the elephant.

They all agreed that the elephant existed, but they all perceived it differently.

For all humans to hold the same belief/opinion would require, I think, some sort of genetic pre-program. We would be more like ants than apes.

[trotsky]

29. Which, I'm sorry, is a terrible analogy.

The blind men could simply be allowed to touch all the parts of the elephant, and they would come up with a more consistent description. You would need to manufacture a good reason why they are forbidden from accessing other parts of the elephant, as we evidently are with gods.

[cbayer]

46. I really like this analogy and agree with you.

This whole attempt to make this god just a single thing on which every one agrees is only done at the extremes.

[skepticscott]

71. You like this analogy only because by some bizarre logic

it lets you convince yourself that religious beliefs that are in direct contradiction can all be right. You just love telling everyone that they're right and can sing Kumbaya.

[demosincebirth]

30. its not religion thats the problem -- its fundamentalism and extremism.

[trotsky]

32. The Armor of God

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html

Why is religion special -- and specially troubling? What makes religion different from any other ideology, community, system of morality, hypothesis about how the world works? And why does that difference makes it uniquely prone to cause damage?

...

Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die.

It therefore has no reality check.

And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality... and extreme, grotesque immorality.

Not only is religion armored against self-correction, many believers - even moderate ones - gleefully embrace the "fact" that it isn't supposed to change. Ever.

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. "If you have a problem with a religion's fundamentalists...

...you probably have a problem with that religion's fundamentals."

- Seth Andrews

[cbayer]

59. I wanted to see this quote in context, so I searched for it.

And the only place it comes up is on DU in posts by you.

It did give me a chance to look through his blog, which I found interesting and generally thoughtful.

But I disagree with this general statement and would like to see it in context before countering it.

[demosincebirth]

75. Seem like that's what I said. eom.

[Act_of_Reparation]

77. Except it isn't.

It's very hard to absolve religion of responsibility for fundamentalism when the religion's core tenets are what directly informs fundamentalism.

[cbayer]

79. Since you apparently are not going to get me a source for context, I will

go ahead and dispute this.

Fundamentalists are literalists. They demand a strict adherence to what they define as "fundamentals" of a given religion.

The problem is in what they define as the fundamentals, their strict adherence to those and their literal interpretations.

It has nothing to do with what most people see as the core tenets of their religion.

Either you or the person you quote or both don't understand the definition of fundamentalist.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Oh, ok then. 'our bad'.

[trotsky]

81. Actually it has everything to do with what people see as the core tenets of their religion.

We've established that no one can take the ENTIRE bible literally, right? I'm pretty sure all can agree on that.

So it comes down to which parts one takes literally. And especially which of those parts are deemed to be the most important - i.e., the core tenets.

After all, there are liberal Christians who are quite nice people who insist on strict adherence to their core tenets - taking care of the poor, the weak, the victimized, etc.

[demosincebirth]

86. I have my opinion -- you have yours -- the rest is semantics

[Act_of_Reparation]

87. Okie dokie

[Iggo]

31. If god was real, nothing else would matter.

[edhopper]

35. A few thoughts

would this God be the one of the major monotheist religions today?
Even people of the same religion follow different versions, so how will we know how to follow him?
As said before, plenty of people with the same religion have fighting between them.

It also made me think how often I see a science fiction movie or tv show where a who civilization has the same religion.
This isn't really realistic, wouldn't a worldwide population be just as diverse? Made an atheistic culture with no Gods (with religion never arising) would be Universal, but other than that...?

[struggle4progress]

41. Guliver's Travels, Part I, Chapter IV

... It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger end; but his present majesty's grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our histories tell us, there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one emperor lost his life, and another his crown. These civil commotions were constantly fomented by the monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the exiles always fled for refuge to that empire. It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end. Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the emperors of Blefusca did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental doctrine of our great prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Blundecral (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words are these: 'that all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end' ...

[pinto]

54. There *is* only one religion. A big house with many different rooms may be an apt analogy.

Whether a god(s) exists or not is another matter. In that context, believers will believe, non-believers will not believe and skeptics will be skeptical.

[trotsky]

56. Non-believers who don't believe will do so because they are skeptical.

I don't buy into the meme that there are extreme fundie atheists who are just as certain as the extreme fundie believers.

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. lol

[pinto]

65. I'm glad he likes it. I'm here all week.

No cover, friendly staff, good drinks, free parking.

[Act_of_Reparation]

66. Doesn't sound like Odin's kind of place.

I'm thinking he prefers angry staff, rotgut, and somewhere to tie his eight-legged flying horse.

[pinto]

70. lol

This could be a start of a quasi reality TV series.

[cbayer]

73. Free parking?!?! Really!

Why have you been holding out on me?

[Hestia]

55. We'd have to take a huge evolutionary step backwards & at the same time foward

Backwards because there were "peaceful" state religions just not in modern times or what we think of as religion - the best known are the Egyptians, who managed it for 4,000 years because everyone was on the same page at the same time. It was easy for them to adapt to the Hellenistic Egyptian pantheon because the gods change names and activities all the time.

Everybody had a place in the pecking order, were incarnated in the place for a reason, accepted it, went on with their very middle-class lives, women had rights, property and could divorce. Do a search for Egyptian Love Poetry. Humans have not changed at all, in either love or war. Good kings were pious in the temples and commissioned public works to keep the masses busy and happy. It all worked out for a long time.

Egypt was the richest nation on earth (through barter, they had no coinage) until Alexander the Greek conquered them, 323-ish BCE(?), then they became a vassal state to winds of war.
==
The Minoans were another state religion culture. Not a lot is known, which is generally from the Greeks, but in observing their frescoes and lack of weapons, they were a very happy people.

Etruscan's seem happy too but very war like and had large focus on the afterlife.

Malta too was a state religion culture, too, yes?

[AtheistCrusader]

63. You'd still have two groups, adherents and non-adherents.

Proving god exists is just part of the proselytizing believer's job, with me.

Then you gottashow such a hypothetical being is worthy of allegiance/worship, etc.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. for the sake of the conjecture just assume you have no choice.

For example this god simply makes everyone believe, and you have no choice about obeying. Also assume that the deity is malevolent capricious and obsessive, like OT Yahweh. Pretty much a fucked universe at that point.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I would fight, on principle, to whatever degree possible.

That would be the cruelest irony, wouldn't it? Creating a universe within which we could develop a moral sense, principles, and free will, only to become a tyrant and take those things away from creatures that have tasted it, and come to depend and rely upon them.

I could understand if it wanted to remove all doubt, but if it tried to remove all free will, I'd want to burn it to the ground.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. Oh but being god and everything it simply makes you not do that.

So the universe is morally fucked, but we have no choice but to love serve and obey our omnipotent tyrant. We bring the next victim to the sacrificial altar with smiles on our faces, even the chosen sacrifice is going "willingly".

[gcomeau]

68. If mankind was all one religion today.

Someone would make up a new one tomorrow.

[greendog]

74. It wouldn't be religion anymore. It'd be reality.

We have reality now and most of the planet's inhabitants choose to ignore it.

[Warpy]

76. No, because charismatic morons would constantly pop up

and start their own cults. Why the hell do you think we ended up with denominations, schisms, and heresies? Why do you think atheists have realized it's all a big house of cards based on hooey and wishful thinking about magic?

It would be better if we simply stopped indoctrinating children with anything but empathy and kindness toward each other.

Of course, the charismatic morons would still pop up. Maybe they'd find less fertile ground in which to plant their poisoned seeds.

Just a thought.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. If I might make a suggestion.

You might want to try this again with one of two explicit options in your scenario. (I notice it's gone in random directions here.)

1. Either be explicit that the finding is made by humans with no reciprocity/acknowledgement from the god to humanity.
2. Have the god itself establish its existence on demand, and verifiably so whenever doubt arises.


The former option allows the rise of new sects and interpretations, the latter doesn't. Both allow the individual free choice to adhere or not.

[Fumesucker]

96. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Godhood..

So how do we know any given "proof" of God means actually honest to God God and not just some technologically advanced aliens fucking with our heads?

I'm fairly well convinced that if there *is* a God then She is vastly amused at our attempts to second guess Her intentions.

All our conceits seem to revolve around the idea that we are the center of God's efforts, stone space has the right idea, we are an undesired and accidental byproduct of some other process with an entirely different purpose than our own miserable existences. Even in Christian theology we are Man 2.0, Great Flood Reboot Edition.

Once you start getting a grasp on how feeble your comprehension of the sheer scale of the cosmos is, trying to see all put there for our sole benefit gets a little ludicrous. Anything shows up and tries to convince me it's God it has some 'splainin to do..

"I remain unconvinced" -ND Tyson